Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
............The Historical Evidence
The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,
The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]
However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).
When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,
Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]
Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,
For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]
Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,
If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15] And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.[16]
However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:
His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]
This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:
His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]
As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.
Conclusion
As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Is that what you thought I was trying to do? I would really like to know how you get Mary was simply "incidental" to Christ's life out of my mini-lesson on human biology. I have never tried to diminish Mary and have always tried to give her the same honor she was endowed with from Holy Scripture. My point, to repeat, is that Jesus' flesh and blood were unique from Mary in the very same way you are from your own mother. You have her and your father's genetic codes, but you developed from a single cell (ovum) from your mother's body along with your father's sperm cell and they together created an entirely new human being different from either yet linked through common DNA. This in no way means your flesh and blood is your mom's or your dad's.
My further point, in case you missed it, was that Pope Leo XIII wrongly stated something about our Lord and he, in turn, did not say what he did through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, since the HS would know the facts. Do you see that, too?
Those who have reached the age of reason that have not been baptized need to repent and be baptized. Those that have been baptized as infants need only repent. Jesus was not speaking to infants who obviously have no need to repent nor the ability to.
Oh, I get it; you are interpreting that verse as one action; well, I interpret it as two: repent, be baptized. Where does Jesus say you have to do them together?
You can certainly leave anytime you want to, but I rather enjoyed the humorous post. :o)
Thanks for the sanity check. We’ve really been keeping you busy with this one!
I know how George W. Bush felt when John Kerry called him stupid.
Everyone's DNA (in every cell) contains enough genetic material from their mother and father to identify their mother and father as their parents in a DNA analysis.
>>Do not make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is also a form of “making it personal.”
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.<<
That is my intent good sir or ma’am. I realize that it is impossible for you to sort through over a thousand posts to mediate, but I assure you my “personal” descriptions were much less in both intensity and insultiveness than my attackers.
The more than once use of the pejorative “progressive” against me should be a banning offense out of the gate (of course IMHO) as should the numerous distortions of my posts.
I realize that some days are harder than others for you — and this forum can certainly get raucous. I try to avoid making it personal but I will give as good as I get when other posters go from content to personality.
As always, I merely ask for even-handed treatment.
And also, as always, I try not to bother Moderators because my nose is out of joint because of thin skin.
Have a good night and I will (no matter how hard I must clench my teeth) try to keep in the area of discussion and facts.
“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” This applies to all except Jesus Christ, Whom the Scriptures claim was sinless. Either Mary sinned, or else we can throw the Scriptures out and live like heathen. If Mary didn’t sin — the Scriptures lie.
http://www.rockycreekbaptist.org
Your DNA is like an intricate description of your body. Think of it like a blue print with precise specifications; except, you take half the blue print from each parent.
However, you don’t have actual flesh from your parents. Your flesh grows from the nutrients eaten by your mother that pass from her blood stream, through the placenta, down the umbilical cord and into your forming body.
Aint God amazing???!!!
Actually, the comment that started this particular exchange: "Moreover, one must remember that the Blood of Christ shed for our sake and those members in which He offers to His Father the wounds He received, the price of our liberty, are no other than the flesh and blood of the virgin, since the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary, and however much it was exalted in the glory of His resurrection, nevertheless the nature of His flesh derived from Mary remained and still remains the same (de Assumpt. B. V. M., c.v., among the Opera S. Aug).”Pope Leo XIII makes Pope Leo look ignorant. I'll resist calling him stupid because science had not advanced enough yet for him to make that statement with any authority - certainly not with any infallible authority.
Where does Jesus say one must be married to enter heaven? Jesus says baptism is necessary for salvation; as far as I know he never said you had to be married. But I suspect you probably know that.
"baptism normatively is synonymous with the effectual decision to believe, as saving faith in one that is confessional in nature"
Well, that's your interpretation. I interpret it that Jesus said baptism is necessary for salvation; He did not say you had to be 18 to be baptized. As One Who was very clear about His love for children, I cannot imagine Him saying "no baptisms under the age of reason; if you die before then, well tough luck!".
I would think it would be obvious that those that were converting in apostolic times were adults, as Christianity was just beginning. The only infants would be those included in the "whole households". Were infants mentioned? No, but neither were teenagers, pre-teens, or anyone else. Nor were infants excluded. Does your bible say "the entire household, except the infants"?
>>You can certainly leave anytime you want to, but I rather enjoyed the humorous post.<<
Which is certainly my preference — I love to make people laugh and rally don’t take away much other than a sort silly “*HUFF* I told THEM* — sometimes on the smallest things.
Hey Griz, let’s bury the hatchet. I am pretty sure neither your Conservative bonafides and I hope you can tell by now, mine, aren’t in question.
Your name is better for our collective reaction: detect an attack, the hackles rise, the claws come out then in the morning we find our drinking buddy all bled out on the cave floor.
If I could control my temper a lot of my life would be easier. And I am dealing with a cold that has the lovely combination of exhausting me while not letting me sleep.
I know you are coming from one perspective, and I know you saw some of my comments as, to say the least, over the top. You called me out on them and I really should have just apologized for being (*Fonzie mode* Wrr... Wro.. Wrgg..”) and move on.
I think we also are both good Christians and that our entry point into the RCC discussion certainly has a lot of distance.
No hard feelings to you MM either. I know you have a spiritual Christian picture that has a great deal of thought and belief behind it and you also defend it with alacrity.
‘Night and God bless all.
I really prefer humorous posts to biting ones. Really.
The Douay-Rheims translation was the only "approved" translation for the Roman Catholics before the 1960's and Vatican II. Some "dyed-in-the-wool" Catholics still cling to it much like the KJV-only "Protestants" they like to ridicule.
I think the nearest antecedent is "her seed", rather than "her" and that is why I agree that it was speaking of Christ. I think it is also considered one of the first Messianic prophesies in the OT.
After a second careful reading, I do not find any point of substantial disagreement with the Holy Father. Particularly clear is this statement: “...nevertheless the nature of His flesh derived from Mary...” because it did (see my DNA discussion above).
Perhaps we've all gotten a little out of hand.
The truth is, Freedumb is called a "Progressive," and much much worse, on threads outside the religion forum. However, I think we all understand that behavior allowed outside the religion threads is not necessarily acceptable on the religion threads.
A good part of this conflict is my fault; I admit that I often react a little "over the top." It's become a habit that developed through spending over half my life in the military. I sometimes forget there are some who choose not to play "rough and tumble," and that's alright.
Unfortunately, Freedumb has opened an interesting can of worms. If calling someone "Progressive" is a banning offense; should calling someone a racist or an elitist be treated the same way? After all, he asked for us to receive "evenhanded treatment." I'm sure he's well aware of the meaning of "evenhanded."
I for one think Freedumb and I would be much better off if we both simply man up, stop lowering the tone of the Religion threads and get over any real or imagined emotional boo-boos.
Would that make your job easier, RM?
Correct, and I said that. You DID read the post, right?
Thank you for telling me what I already knew, and have already posted. ;-D
FYI, I am a retired nurse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.